Archetypes for All

... Paizo have quite proudly said we only ever have to refer to 1 table even if we multiclass. ...

Thinking of the Druid Reveal at the banquett of PaizoCon, I don't remember seeing a table of progression in the Druid section. (I might have missed it, might not remember it, it could be on a page not shown.... a lot of reasons really).

But: could it not be, that Paizo is refering to the 1 table detailing the progression of all classes (the one in PF1e named: "Character Advancement and Level-Dependent Bonuses" detailing when you get that feat every odd level and the ability score increases).
That table in PF2e would probably show the progression of Ancestry feats, Ability score increases, maybe Skill-Feats.

IIRC, they said that Multiclassing would reference a single table

Okay, late as always, just wanted to say how much I'm liking the direction the devs are going. Modular archetypes and prestige classes, f!$@ yeah. I really dig this.

Sea Legs: as everybody and their mom and pet said, change the name, because that's not swimming-related!

Pirate Dedication: I feel it's a pretty good tradeoff, honestly, it gets you a lot of cool stuff, whatever class you are. Of course the whole pirate archetype won't be much use outside of a nautical campaign, but that's only to be expected - why would you want to have all these pirate-y skills if you're gonna adventure on land all the time? And I think the GM should help you make your character (you say "I wanna take the pirate feats!", I say "Buddy this campaign doesn't really involve ships" if I'm using an AP, or if you want to be a pirate and be in pirate-y situations and we discuss it before starting a new campaign, I'll make sure you can really shine and those situations will be both frequent and prominent).

I like how customizable characters will be thanks to all these different feats to choose + backgrounds. I really feel it gets you the best options for your concept without going completely point-based like, say, GURPS or M&M (fine games if you like them, me, I find them generally too complex for my tastes. I come from 5e, so simplicity and elegance are big to me, but I also want more tactical depth and customization. My players also really don't like very complex, inscrutable systems, and are huge D&D fans).

Devs' notes in the margins: I too think they would be very interesting and explain a lot of the whys and wherefores. It could win you a lot of converts and at the same time help people homebrew their own content, furthering accessibility.

Gray Maiden Plate: very excited. That's plate armor! First time we see it in this blogs. Looks really costly and powerful, exactly the way it should be. While I'm quite sure in RL people don't actually have problems with moving dexterously in full harness if they've had even just some hours of familiarity, I'm ready to break my suspension of disbelief a little if that makes for a better game - we are trying to gate armors after all. Wizards in brigandine... interesting, possibly feat-based, but not part of the core class.

Currency shift: awesome, finally we'll count silver pieces and gold will be rare and valuable! I love this new edition more and more with each new blog entry.

Yes. Great. I can't wait for August. This is gonna be a real treat for my guys, they'll love it.

P.S.: my signature character is an Alkenstar tinkerer alchemist (an archetype allowing you to drop the mutagen and giving you a sweet clockwork companion instead). I've read that the mutagen is a class feature, so no escaping that unless special hinted new archetypes, but in the future, some way of replicating the concept in some way would be pretty damn neat!

I like the idea of tackling multi-Class archetypes and this might be the best way to adress it. I understand how it makes the devs' job so much easier. It also fits the Prestige Class concept quite well

But as the blog post describes it, it shows so much mechanics and so little flavor that it feels at the moment bland and boring

I am happy to know that Class archetypes that will enable us to change features (rather than Class feats) might be in the future of the game. Not sure they will come as soon as the PF2 CRB though as they might be still another source of confusion for newcomers

That said, the above should have been stated right away in the blog post and not in a dev's post hidden within 10 pages of posts

That the name is the same while what it describes is deeply different AND offers less flexibility than the PF1 archetypes only compounds this and fostered unnecessary acrimony through misunderstanding and confusion

I guess that most PrC will go the Belong to an organization way and that is where we will find the missing requirements such as LE alignment for Red Mantis Assasin

It was stated right away in the blog post that these new archetypes don't mean they can't do class specific archetypes.

"This doesn't prevent us from creating more specific archetypes as well, but it opens up the design space further."

The Raven Black wrote:

I like the idea of tackling multi-Class archetypes and this might be the best way to adress it. I understand how it makes the devs' job so much easier. It also fits the Prestige Class concept quite well

But as the blog post describes it, it shows so much mechanics and so little flavor that it feels at the moment bland and boring

I am happy to know that Class archetypes that will enable us to change features (rather than Class feats) might be in the future of the game. Not sure they will come as soon as the PF2 CRB though as they might be still another source of confusion for newcomers

That said, the above should have been stated right away in the blog post and not in a dev's post hidden within 10 pages of posts

That the name is the same while what it describes is deeply different AND offers less flexibility than the PF1 archetypes only compounds this and fostered unnecessary acrimony through misunderstanding and confusion

I guess that most PrC will go the Belong to an organization way and that is where we will find the missing requirements such as LE alignment for Red Mantis Assasin

It was stated right away in the blog post that these new archetypes don't mean they can't do class specific archetypes.

"This doesn't prevent us from creating more specific archetypes as well, but it opens up the design space further."

And yet many readers, myself included, did not think of PF1 archetypes when we read this

IIRC, they said that Multiclassing would reference a single table

I wouldn't be surprised if it was a single "multiclass character" table, like 13th Age does (I think 4e did something similar with "Hybrid Characters" but less succinctly.) Doing this does limit multiclassing to an equal mix of two classes, but I wouldn't mind it. If players can no longer "shop" for specific features with strategic dipping, I certainly wouldn't mind.

It was stated right away in the blog post that these new archetypes don't mean they can't do class specific archetypes.

"This doesn't prevent us from creating more specific archetypes as well, but it opens up the design space further."

Admittedly, that says nothing about the thing people keep mentioning. They're not talking about "class specific archetypes", they're talking about "archetypes that let you change class features" (which by implication would be class specific, but the class specific aspect isn't the part people are focusing on in their inquiries).

lol will "resonate" with you.

Must be about Fighters.

Nah, it's gonna be Humans, 'cause everybody who plays it is human. Get it?

So these are just feat chains, not archetypes. They could just be added to the standard list of feats. The whole purpose of archetypes was that they replaced features allowing for different takes on what a class is. Feat chains are all well and good, but I want to see some archetypes.

This feels incredibly 4th edition.

So these are just feat chains, not archetypes. They could just be added to the standard list of feats. The whole purpose of archetypes was that they replaced features allowing for different takes on what a class is. Feat chains are all well and good, but I want to see some archetypes.

In PF2 everything is a feat though. Channel Energy? Rage Powers? Sorcerer Bloodline? All feats. Why they decided this when 'feat taxes' were despised in PF1 I'll never know...

gnoams wrote:

So these are just feat chains, not archetypes. They could just be added to the standard list of feats. The whole purpose of archetypes was that they replaced features allowing for different takes on what a class is. Feat chains are all well and good, but I want to see some archetypes.

In PF2 everything is a feat though. Channel Energy? Rage Powers? Sorcerer Bloodline? All feats. Why they decided this when 'feat taxes' were despised in PF1 I'll never know...

If only that was true, it wouldn't be an issue... But the classes have set abilities that can't be altered: EVERY rogue MUST have sneak attack no matter what because it's not a feat.

I am aware of that. I should have said most things are a feat.

Dragonborn3 wrote:

gnoams wrote:

So these are just feat chains, not archetypes. They could just be added to the standard list of feats. The whole purpose of archetypes was that they replaced features allowing for different takes on what a class is. Feat chains are all well and good, but I want to see some archetypes.

In PF2 everything is a feat though. Channel Energy? Rage Powers? Sorcerer Bloodline? All feats. Why they decided this when 'feat taxes' were despised in PF1 I'll never know...

If only that was true, it wouldn't be an issue... But the classes have set abilities that can't be altered: EVERY rogue MUST have sneak attack no matter what because it's not a feat.

Exactly this, I don't understand why they didn't actually make everything a feat

Dragonborn3 wrote:

gnoams wrote:

So these are just feat chains, not archetypes. They could just be added to the standard list of feats. The whole purpose of archetypes was that they replaced features allowing for different takes on what a class is. Feat chains are all well and good, but I want to see some archetypes.

In PF2 everything is a feat though. Channel Energy? Rage Powers? Sorcerer Bloodline? All feats. Why they decided this when 'feat taxes' were despised in PF1 I'll never know...

If only that was true, it wouldn't be an issue... But the classes have set abilities that can't be altered: EVERY rogue MUST have sneak attack no matter what because it's not a feat.

To me the reason all the playtest archetypes follow the new style is they already have tested how to trade out class features we have done that for the last 8 years.

Also I don't know that we will hear feat tax as much in 2e since every character gets 3x the number of feats they did before (10 feats in 1e vs 11 class feats, 11 skill feats, 5 ancestry feats, and 5 General Feats).

graystone wrote:

Dragonborn3 wrote:

gnoams wrote:

So these are just feat chains, not archetypes. They could just be added to the standard list of feats. The whole purpose of archetypes was that they replaced features allowing for different takes on what a class is. Feat chains are all well and good, but I want to see some archetypes.

In PF2 everything is a feat though. Channel Energy? Rage Powers? Sorcerer Bloodline? All feats. Why they decided this when 'feat taxes' were despised in PF1 I'll never know...

If only that was true, it wouldn't be an issue... But the classes have set abilities that can't be altered: EVERY rogue MUST have sneak attack no matter what because it's not a feat.

To me the reason all the playtest archetypes follow the new style is they already have tested how to trade out class features we have done that for the last 8 years.

Also I don't know that we will hear feat tax as much in 2e since every character gets 3x the number of feats they did before (10 feats in 1e vs 11 class feats, 11 skill feats, 5 ancestry feats, and 5 General Feats).

It actually only works out to 6 more feats than before, not 3x, and specifically 6 skill feats. The class feats are replacing class abilities. The ancestry feats are replacing abilities races just used to come with. General feats were cut from 10 to 5. 5 of the skill feats replace the other 5 general feats, leaving only 6 extra skill feats compared to PF1's feat / ability allotment.

It's more flexible than before, sure, just not actually many more more abilities in a significant way.

I am aware of that. I should have said most things are a feat.

Well that is the crux of why people don't see them as archetypes but feat trees. Archetypes, as pathfinder made them, can affect those set abilities. IMO, it's more like adding options to your list, like new discoveries or rage powers or monk feats: some new ones that apply to water travel doesn't make a pirate archetype. The fact that you they can be used for every class doesn't really matter, the effect is the same.

Don't get me wrong, they may be fine feat trees but that just aren't archetypes to me: IMO, they just don't have the same impact.

One more thought about the Grey Maiden prestige archetype. I think it's a weird choice for the only one to include in the playtest, as that particular group isn't the most open to PC inclusion - they're primary bad guys. I'd have thought something open to the more standard good aligned adventurers would have made more sense.

One more thought about the Grey Maiden prestige archetype. I think it's a weird choice for the only one to include in the playtest, as that particular group isn't the most open to PC inclusion - they're primary bad guys. I'd have thought something open to the more standard good aligned adventurers would have made more sense.

Yes, like Hellknights :D

I must say I very strongly prefer "Prestige classes" as feat trees than as actual classes which delay your progression in other things. People in my circle assiduously avoided PrCs in PF1 because they get in the way of meaningful class features (even if you don't lose spellcasting, you still miss out on arcana, bloodlines, focus powers, judgments, wildshape, etc.)

Plus, I never really liked how you needed to multiclass to join a club, whereas "taking a feat" to represent whatever it is you gain upon qualifying for membership makes a lot of sense. Particularly if we can keep the requirements for qualifying to be actually relevant to what the prestige class does; it always rankled how psychic casters had to take a useless (to them) feat to qualify as Hellknight Signifers, for example.

So no matter what we change about things like the pirate archetype, let's do this for prestige classes. Plus, since the archetype essentially "you are ellgible to take these feats" we expand on them in future books by printing more Hellknight feats, more Grey Maiden feats, more Bellflower feats, etc. Being open ended like this can help a lot of things stay relevant.

I must say I very strongly prefer "Prestige classes" as feat trees than as actual classes which delay your progression in other things. People in my circle assiduously avoided PrCs in PF1 because they get in the way of meaningful class features (even if you don't lose spellcasting, you still miss out on arcana, bloodlines, focus powers, judgments, wildshape, etc.)

Plus, I never really liked how you needed to multiclass to join a club, whereas "taking a feat" to represent whatever it is you gain upon qualifying for membership makes a lot of sense. Particularly if we can keep the requirements for qualifying to be actually relevant to what the prestige class does; it always rankled how psychic casters had to take a useless (to them) feat to qualify as Hellknight Signifers, for example.

So no matter what we change about things like the pirate archetype, let's do this for prestige classes. Plus, since the archetype essentially "you are ellgible to take these feats" we expand on them in future books by printing more Hellknight feats, more Grey Maiden feats, more Bellflower feats, etc. Being open ended like this can help a lot of things stay relevant.

I'll agree here 100%. I've always seen PrC's as 99% dead weight [in pathfinder]. As such, I welcome the 'prestige' feat trees. IMO, it works well for them and as you say, it's easy to new content.

PS: Adding new stuff is the one thing that IS a nice feature of archetypes and feats: I don't mind that archetype open up new feats, it's just that I don't want that to be the ONLY thing they do.

PPS: I have to say I'm also not a fan of the prerequisite feats required to take another archetype: with a minimum of 3 feats needed and 2nd being the first level you can take them: at best, you could have 3 as long as you trade out most class feats.

EDIT: oh course, you COULD take a 4th archetype at 20th, but it's not really giving you access to anything as you've hit the end of class progression.

So now that prestige classes are now apparently a series of feats, I was looking at how to convert some of the classes from PF1.

Horizon Walker: Pretty easy. The dedication feat would give you a favored terrain. Additional feats lets you get more favored terrains or upgrading them into Terrain Mastery and then Terrain Dominance. There may be some power issues involved, though, as having feats that give you immuntity to fatigue, the abilty to fly or darkvision will need to be balanced.

Stalwart defender: The dedication feat is obviously Defensive stance, with the various defensive powers becoming feats. Since the math is tighter it would probably lose the flat AC Bonus. Damage Reduction would likely be a defensive power. You will likely get less bang for your buck compared to the PF 1 version.

Arcane archer: Until we see how multiclassing is going to work, this will mostly be a wizard or sorcerer class only. The dedication feat would be the enhancing arrow ability, with the various other arrow abilities being feats. The issue is that it also has a 7/10 spell progression, which almost certainly will not be done with feats, thus restricting it to classes with arcane spellcasting.

Mystic Theurge: I have no idea how they will be able to do this one. The only way I can think of is if class feats can be used for spell progresson, and even then you would be more of a dabbler in the other magical field.

I really want them to be able to make Mystic Theurge a viable option, but I won't hold my breath.

P.S.: my signature character is an Alkenstar tinkerer alchemist (an archetype allowing you to drop the mutagen and giving you a sweet clockwork companion instead). I've read that the mutagen is a class feature, so no escaping that unless special hinted new archetypes, but in the future, some way of replicating the concept in some way would be pretty damn neat!

Side note, but Mutagen isn't exactly a Class Feature, it doesn't look like. They're a special category of Alchemical Items, but you can just not make any if you really want to avoid them.

Getting a clockwork companion will need an archetype though, yeah.

So, something about dedication feats is that they allow for feats that are stronger, or at least, gives you more than usual, due to the restriction with them. You need to take two more feats from the archetype before you can take another dedication feat, so this allows them to give the player more for the cost of a feat.

Due to this, it makes feats that goes into a particular style good as an archetype, since they can give more right off the bat to support that style sooner.

Folks,

Let's drop the "everything is called a feat" discussion, as it is not really relevant to this thread. Although I must say it is kinda fascinating watching all of you mirror the internal debates we had about 18 months ago when the issue was raised in house.

I also want to say that the archetypes in this book are quite experimental. There are not a lot of them (only 7 in the playtest book) because we really wanted to just get a proof of concept out there before putting them into wider use. The folks in this thread have already given us a few ideas on how we might change them.

This is why we playtest.

So there's another good idea: since "prestige" archetypes works exactly like other archetypes (except for the heavier prerequisites) you can totally remove the unnecessary prestige word. Please, unchain from the shackles of 3.5 legacy.

Also, the Special text at the bottom of dedication feats is totally unnecessary. You'd just say in the general/standard archetype rules that one can't select a new dedication feat until he have chosen three feats of the same archetype.

No, see, I enjoy the word Prestige. If I worked to qualify then being a Mystic Theurge or Dragon Disciple or Horizon Walker is prestigious to me.

I'd suggest the Prestige tag be tied to archetypes with a requirement of "belong to a certain group" and that membership has other requirements associated with it.

Other former prestige classes could simply be higher level archetypes with stronger requirements than low level ones.

Also, the Special text at the bottom of dedication feats is totally unnecessary. You'd just say in the general/standard archetype rules that one can't select a new dedication feat until he have chosen three feats of the same archetype.

The thing is, just because the two examples we have both require 3 feats from the archetype to start another, doesn't necessarily mean that all archetypes ever will be the same way. Some might require more, some might require less, some might let you get away with just the dedication. Leaving it in the Dedications gives them the room to do that if not now then down the line.

^ I've been generally critical or questioning of Dedication mechanic, but I would say there is also option of having that general rules text, but each Archetype Dedication Feat has simplified section which simply reads "Dedication Requirement: 3 Feats". That cuts down on boiler-plate repitition, while allowing the specific requirement to vary. "3 Feats" has meaning only when you know the general Dedication rules, but that actually even leaves the door open to totally non-standard Dedication rules, they would just have to spell them out for that specific case. I'm thinking there could even be semi-common allowance for non-Archetype Feats to "count as" Dedication Feats for this purpose. Although that gets into over-all purpose/role of Dedication mechanic.

What would "different dedications have different numbers of feats required before you can take different one" even say about those archetypes?

Like it's kind of odd that "how hard is it to be a pirate and a gray maiden" is apparently a property of the pirate dedication, not the general rules for archetypes.

If one archetype requires you to take 4 feats to "get out" and a different one requried you to take just 1, what would that say about those two different archetypes in terms of "what it's like to be one"?

I think the universal archetypes (including the prestige) shown/described would all be 2 additional feats before starting a new one. However I can envision class-specific ones, that swap out class features wanting to use a different number based on how front loaded they are.

I don't really know, and it isn't clear if Paizo intends a universal 2 Feat requirement or that is variable, but the entire Dedication concept isn't clear to me. It really only makes sense if Dedication feats are over-powered, so that you shouldn't easily be able to take multiple ones simultaneously (unless you complete the Dedication requirement for existing ones which is considered to balance it over-all). But that it is OK to have ONE of these over-powered Dedication feats all on it's own (vs. normal Class or General/Skill Feats). I'm not sure what is the rationale and great thing being achieved, vs. the normal dynamic of fitting feats into limited slots and fulfilling thir pre-reqs. So far AFAIK there is no reason to believe that arbitrary multiclassing is limited, meaning Archetypes somehow are more exclusive than regular class abilities that you could get from multiclassing e.g. Barb/Alchemist/Bard/Cleric. Are Pirates that special?

As to idea of 'zero Feat Dedication requirement', that entirely removes point of classifying it as a Dedication Feat IMHO. Might as well just cal it a Universal Class Feat anybody can take. Which it seems ALSO exist outside of Archetype system (Sudden Charge, Attack of Opportunity, even if those aren't all LITERALLY Universal but shared by some applicable classes). I'm just not convinced on focus on Archetype Dedication as opposed to just having transparency re: Universal Class Feats (which is power tier of Feat above all else) which may be restricted with whatever pre-reqs to include class levels. The over-focus on Archetype Feats as Class Feats also distracts from how these Feats could be inter-related with General or Skill Feats, which seem completely outside scope of Archetype Feats as previewed, which is lost opportunity IMHO.

I think the universal archetypes (including the prestige) shown/described would all be 2 additional feats before starting a new one. However I can envision class-specific ones, that swap out class features wanting to use a different number based on how front loaded they are.

IMHO Class-specific Archetype chains seem the strongest case for a Dedication mechanic, although even there I don't know if that's the most straight forward approach... As opposed to saying:

Totem already functions as inescapable Dedication (until some method to pick from other Totems is revealed, plausibly with high Level Pre-Req and/or modification of Pre-Reqs)

As far as "swapping out" class features, i.e. non-Feat features, I don't think that needs Dedication mechanic, that would simply use P1E style feature replacement, which AFAIK they have indicated they may pursue in later books. If you've "swapped it out" then it wouldn't remain for something else to "swap out", after all, so no worries about "Dedication".

I'm not a fan of archetypes that replace feats. They're basically just feats by another name. The thing that made archetypes great was that you could use them to replace abilities that weren't relevant to the character you wanted to create.

This feels incredibly 4th edition.

How so? I don't care for it much, but prestige classes in 4th were 'pre-select a package of six abilities you'll get spread out over 11th-20th level' and the pirate thing doesn't resemble 'lack of flavor text edition' at all. Though I'm not sure why anyone would burn feat slots on abilities so narrow they're essentially flavor text.

I'm not a fan of archetypes that replace feats. They're basically just feats by another name. The thing that made archetypes great was that you could use them to replace abilities that weren't relevant to the character you wanted to create.

Those extraneous abilities from PF1 are now class feats. So in PF2, archetypes replace those abilities that aren't relevant to the character you want to create.

I really want them to be able to make Mystic Theurge a viable option, but I won't hold my breath.

This depends how multiclassing works. IF we have the 5E version of 3.x multiclassing, where you can take levels in various classes and if they're spellcasters you add levels together on a universal casting table for upcasting spell slot access, but only know spells according to your actual level of the class... then Mystic Theurge can basically amount to a repeatable feat saying "Each time you take this feat, increase your level of [divine class] and [arcane class] by 1 for the purpose of spells known, but not above your character level."

How so? I don't care for it much, but prestige classes in 4th were 'pre-select a package of six abilities you'll get spread out over 11th-20th level' and the pirate thing doesn't resemble 'lack of flavor text edition' at all. Though I'm not sure why anyone would burn feat slots on abilities so narrow they're essentially flavor text.

You could do a copy paste from themes which were introduced in the Dark Sun Player's Guide and you'd get almost damn near exact mechanics and structure.

But that said, this is just a feat chain with some flavour text added on.

Those extraneous abilities from PF1 are now class feats. So in PF2, archetypes replace those abilities that aren't relevant to the character you want to create.

No. Some of those extraneous ability from PF1 are now class feats. In PF 2e, archetypes will not help me make an alchemist who doesn't use bombs, because all alchemists regardless of class feat choice or archetypes will still get Empower Bombs at 3rd level.

Unless of course we eventually do get archetypes which are class specific in that they change, replace, modify, etc. class features which are not feats- rogues without (or with delayed) sneak attacks, Alchemists without bombs, etc.

I think people want archetypes which don't actually make sense for people outside a specific class.

Unless of course we eventually do get archetypes which are class specific in that they change, replace, modify, etc. class features which are not feats- rogues without (or with delayed) sneak attacks, Alchemists without bombs, etc.

Promises of "eventually" aren't going to mollify people. I'm fine with them not being in the playtest but an Alchemist that trades out bombs for easier access to mutagen, or more poison stuff, or just reprinting the Vivisectionist or whatever is something that should be in the CRB.

Roswynn wrote:

P.S.: my signature character is an Alkenstar tinkerer alchemist (an archetype allowing you to drop the mutagen and giving you a sweet clockwork companion instead). I've read that the mutagen is a class feature, so no escaping that unless special hinted new archetypes, but in the future, some way of replicating the concept in some way would be pretty damn neat!

Side note, but Mutagen isn't exactly a Class Feature, it doesn't look like. They're a special category of Alchemical Items, but you can just not make any if you really want to avoid them.

Getting a clockwork companion will need an archetype though, yeah.

You could. You could also just not use bombs.

*Angry mob picks up Poster and carries them off*

What'd I say?

Promises of "eventually" aren't going to mollify people. I'm fine with them not being in the playtest but an Alchemist that trades out bombs for easier access to mutagen, or more poison stuff, or just reprinting the Vivisectionist or whatever is something that should be in the CRB.

Well Archetypes were not in the PF1 CRB, so even if the kind of Archetypes I like are not in the PF2 CRB, as long as they show up eventually I'll be content.

Like I don't think there's any chance they don't explore this design space- they have a whole lot of examples to work from.

Arachnofiend wrote:

Promises of "eventually" aren't going to mollify people. I'm fine with them not being in the playtest but an Alchemist that trades out bombs for easier access to mutagen, or more poison stuff, or just reprinting the Vivisectionist or whatever is something that should be in the CRB.

Well Archetypes were not in the PF1 CRB, so even if the kind of Archetypes I like are not in the PF2 CRB, as long as they show up eventually I'll be content.

Like I don't think there's any chance they don't explore this design space- they have a whole lot of examples to work from.

Archetypes weren't in the PF1 CRB because the idea hadn't been conceptualized yet. Putting such an incredibly popular mechanic on the backburner seems like outright stupidity, to be honest, and taking away PF1 archetypes seems to fly right in the face of PF2's commitment to modularity (you can do anything you want with your Alchemist, as long as it involves throwing bombs).

I like the look of this. I love archetypes and prestige classes to make my characters feel more unique, especially since I also love multiclassing. This looks more like multiclassing without actually multiclassing, which is neat. I just hope that Dragon Disciple and Shadowdancer will return in PF2. I LOVE dragons and spontaneous casting, so it was a perfect match that my first PF1 character was Sorcerer4/Fighter1/Dragon Disciple7. I'd love to try and recreate him in PF2. In a similar vein, the most fun character to play so far for me was my scythe wielding CORE Cleric3/Fighter2/Shadowdancer3/Barbarian/2...I wanna play her some more!

Class specific Archetypes aren't in the PF2e Playtest and Core Rulebook because they take quite a bit of space.

If the Pirate Archetype from the blog takes up as much space as a class specific archetype like vivisectionist it is more economic to take the new archetypes that any class can use.

From what has been communicated, Paizo is aware that class specific archetypes that replace class features (which can't be traded by the Feat-Archetypes) are high on the list of wants.

Unless of course we eventually do get archetypes which are class specific in that they change, replace, modify, etc. class features which are not feats- rogues without (or with delayed) sneak attacks, Alchemists without bombs, etc.

1. Eventually could mean in 2 years, it could mean in 9 years.

Yes, they went for 2 pretty niche concepts, I would like to see a more standard, class-specific archetype to compare. The feat thing is making my head swim a bit, even though it's just a word for ability/feature/talent, etc, I think seeing an actual class table/entry will make all the difference. And I would like them to revisit armour.

I feel that with archetypes and the customization classes have with feats now, each class needs a mechanical identity that the class needs to have to define it as that class. For the Rogue, this would be its Sneak Attack, for example. There aren't going to be Rogues without it; it's going to define the class.

If a similar class is desired without Sneak Attack, that's probably better served as a different class rather than an archetype.